This document summarizes a presentation on wetlands and their ecosystem services. It discusses how wetlands provide important services like water regulation, purification, and storage. It provides examples of how assessing the economic value of these services, such as avoided water treatment costs and flood prevention savings, has supported decisions to conserve and restore wetlands. The presentation emphasizes that recognizing both qualitative and quantitative benefits, in addition to economic values, is important for decision-making. It concludes by noting that tools like natural capital accounting and payments for ecosystem services can help integrate wetland values into broader systems.

1. www.ieep.eu
@IEEP_eu
Water, wetlands and ecosystem services
Marianne Kettunen & Patrick ten Brink
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
22 January 2015
ESWG Webinar
Picture © Stefan Simis

2. Wetlands and their ecosystem services
Picture © IEEP M. Kettunen

3. xxx Picture © IEEP Web
Wetlands & water related ecosystem service
© M. Kettunen © SYKE Kuvapankki © www.clevergreen.co.za©www.cleanwatertea
m.com
Wetlands need water …
Water (quantity & quality)
needs wetlands …
Wetland ecosystem
services:
water retention,
aquifer recharge
water regulation
water purification

4. xxx Picture © IEEP Web
Wetlands & other ecosystem services
© photos: www.ramsar.org
Agriculture
Subsistence
Aesthetics
Recreation / Bird watching
Carbon storage
Fisheries

5. Source: TEEB case by L. Brander & K. Schyut (2010) The economic value of world’s wetlands (benefit transfer) www.teebweb.org
© Photos EEA report

6. • 1/3 of the world’s 100 largest cities draw a
large part of their drinking water from PAs.
• PAs & forests purify water for NY city = US$ 6
billion (total) savings in water treatment costs
• 80% of Quito’s drinking water originate from
two PAs
• Venezuela’s national PA system prevents
sedimentation that would reduce farm
earnings by around US$ 3.5 million/year.
• Costs of green infra < Costs of manmade
infra
- See TEEB for national & international / local & regional policy makers 2010 for references -
Protected wetlands:
benefits for biodiversity & water management

7. Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded wetlands can bring
considerable benefits to people, also economic. Examples:
o Climate change mitigation and adaptation
o Flood risk prevention
o Reduction of damage of storms
o Livelihood for local communities
– Sometimes natural systems present cheaper options than man-
made systems
– If thresholds of irreversibility have been passed, the level of
biodiversity won’t be restored completely, but it is still possible to
restore/rehabilitate some ecosystem functions and ES
slide by Patrick ten Brink and Daniela Russi
Wetland restoration

8. • Advocacy & awareness raising: examples of benefits lost /
costs related to the loss of wetlands
• Concrete support to decision-making: enabling all values of
wetlands are accounted for (eg public, non-market values)
→ identifying trade-offs, making more sustainable decisions
• Wetlands as an investment (eg. restoration): seeing
wetlands as green infrastructure that support both
biodiversity and ecosystem services
How can ES assessment and valuation support
wetland conservation / sustainable use ?

9. Valuation of water & wetland related
ecosystem services
Picture © IEEP M. Kettunen

10. TEEB approach for valuation (of wetlands)
1. Recognising value: in addition to its intrinsic value,
nature supports all human wellbeing
2. Demonstrating value: in economic terms (qualitative/
quantitative / monetary) to support decision making
3. Capturing value: introduce mechanisms that
incorporate the values of ecosystems into decision
making
Source: TEEB final synthesis report 2010

11. Pictures © M. KettunenPictures © M. Kettunen
Local benefits of wetlands:
– Food supply and security (fish)
– Protection against natural hazards (eg mangroves)
– Local community livelihood (fisheries, tourism …)
– Purification of coastal water
– Etc.
Regional and national benefits
of wetlands:
– National food supply and security
– Recreation and tourism
– National natural & cultural heritage
– Etc. Global benefits of wetlands:
– Carbon storage / sequestration
– Global food supply and security (fish)
– Recreation and tourism at global level
– Etc.
Picture © SYKE kuvapankki SYKEkuva
The geography of benefits & stakeholders
M. Kettunen – own presentation

12. Quantitative
Qualitative
Monetary
Full range of benefits underpinned by biodiversity
(e.g. yet unknown benefits)
Monetary: market price of products from wetlands
value of carbon storage, avoided costs of water purification etc.
Quantitative: amount of people enjoying products from wetla
volume of stored carbon, volume of purified water etc.
Qualitative: range of various benefits
provided by wetlands, dependency of people
on these benefits etc.
Tip of the iceberg only!
Picture © Nigel Dudl
Source: modified from Kettunen & ten Brink

13. Picture © Nigel Dudley
• Situation: business initiative for a
private hydro plant in a small water
catchment (San José, Costa Rica)
• Recognition: water quality and
availability depends on the land use
within the catchment
• Outcome: integrity of the catchment’s
water circulation sustained by
payments to landowners as
compensation for sust. management
practices.
Picture © Nigel Dudley
Sometimes recognising value is enough
Pers. com. Nigel Dudley (IUCN WCPA) (2014)

14. • Situation: Plans to drain the Nakivubo Swamp
(Kampala, Uganda) (>40 km2) for agriculture.
• Assessment: Waste water treatment &
nutrient retention capacity of the swamp was
assessed. Maintaining wetland (vs. manmade
solutions) resulted in benefits worth ~1 –
1.75 million $ / year. Also ~2 million $ / year
avoided costs of running a sewage treatment
facility.
• Outcome: Plans for draining the wetland were
abandoned and Nakivubo Swamps gazetted as
protected area.
Sometimes demonstrating (economic) is needed
See TEEB for regional policy-makers (2011)

15. • Situation: Vittel natural mineral water (FR)
depends on high quality water from
Vosges Mountains (no pre-treatment
allowed by law).
• Assessment: Costs of managing upstream
ecosystems in a manner that guarantees
continued supply of clean water are lower
than the costs of moving the sourcing of
water elsewhere.
• Outcome: Farmers upstream are paid to
adopt best low-impact farming practises.
Protection of 92% of the water catchment
area!
Sometimes there is an opportunity to capture
(economic) value via instruments
Perrot-Maître D. (2006)

16. Wetland ecosystem services in practice
- from big ideas to concrete solutions -
Picture © IEEP M. Kettunen

17. Ecosystem service
stock
(status & trends)
Ecosystem service
flow
(status & trends)
Ecosystem service
value
(current & potential)
• Qualitative
• Quantitative
• Monetary
Biodiversity (status & trends) Indication of resilience !
Trade-offs
Trade-offs
Trade-offs
Big ideas: assessing wetland ES …
M. Kettunen – own presentation

18. ES Stock – Flow – Value
Biodiversity Etc.A bundle of greener
macroeconomic & societal
indicators
Natural Capital Accounting
(NCA):
Ecosystem accounts (EA) &
System of Integrated
Environmental and Economic
Accounting (SEEA)
… and bringing that information into macro-systems
M. Kettunen – own presentation

19. Nature-based solutions and (marine) spatial planning
Sustainable business ideas, inc. algae or reed
based biofuels, nature-based tourism …
Climate change
mitigation via blue
carbon
MPAs supporting
sustainable fisheries
& biodiversity
Sustainable forestry (eg PES)
Sustainable agriculture
Nature-based innovations for
water purification (eg
bioremediation)
Green infrastructure for
nutrient capture (wetlands)
Challenge: water quality / eutrophication
Challenge: sustainable fisheries
Challenge: climate change
Challenge: sust. development of coastal communities
Regional solutions: wetlands as active part of
water management strategies
M. Kettunen – own presentation, based on D’Amato & Kettunen in TEEB Finland (2014)

20. Regulation of water quality (N retention):
– Annual N removal at least 1000 kg N / ha / individual wetland (minimum) → Individual wetlands cost-
effective solutions for managing water quality
– N removal levels and cost-effectiveness depend on the design and location of constructed wetland →
achieving benefits on a large scale requires careful planning !
Biodiversity conservation:
– Species numbers and population sizes of birds and amphibians ↑ → positive impact on species in the
national Red List
– Species numbers high also on nutrient removal wetlands → ‘win-win’ management for biodiversity and
ecosystem services
→ Wetland restoration can support 1) biodiversity and 2) ecosystem services can support
biodiversity conservation and water management
Source: Strand and Weisner (2013) Ecological Engineering 56: 14-25
Wetland construction / restoration cost-effective solution for
water and biodiversity (south coast of SE)

21. • Situation: The Napa River Basin (California) suffers
from frequent flooding.
• Assessment: Levees & channel modification to
prevent flooding were deemed unsustainable by the
citizens (eg with several negative impacts to water
quality)
• Outcome: A comprehensive flood control plan to
restore river’s original capacity to handle flood waters
was adopted. Significant mitigation of damages and
over US$ 1.6 billion savings in flood protection.
• Costs of managing green infra < Costs of damage
& manmade infra
- See TEEB for local & regional policy makers 2010 for references -
© Andre Kunzelmann / UFZ
Cost savings: flood management (regional)

22. • Situation: Surface runoff from the city of Nummela
(Fin) has been increasing since the expansion of the
city, affecting the quality of surrounding water
bodies.
• Assessment: Management of surface runoff via
‘natural’ means (eg through wetland restoration)
more sustainable and cost effective than manmade
solutions. Such approach also brings co-benefits for
recreation.
• Outcome: Restoration costs for 1 ha of wetland
were 62 000 EUR total (inc. infra for recreation) vs.
costs of manmade infra 50 000 EUR / every 100
meters.
• Costs of restoring green infra < Costs of
manmade infra
- Hannele Ahponen & Outi Salminen for TEEB Nordic -
© Ympäristölehti 3/2010
Cost savings: flood management (local)

23. • Situation: In the Andean region, upstream
ecosystems regulate water supply and purify water
for downstream users.
• Assessment: Maintaining ecosystems’ natural
capacity to maintain and purify water provides a
low-cost option for maintaining access to clean,
regular water supply.
• Outcome: ‘Water Funds’ was established to
compensate upstream land users for managing
forest and grasslands in sustainable manner.
• Costs of green infra < Costs of manmade infra
- See TEEB for local & regional policy makers 2010 for references -
©http://conservationvalue.blogspot
.com/2006_05_01_archive.htm
Cost savings: drinking water management

24. • Situation: drainage of 930,000 ha peatlands in
Germany for agriculture cause emissions of 20
million tonnes of CO2-eq. per year. Total damage of
these emissions amounts to 1.4 billion EUR
• Assessment: peatland restoration considered as
low cost and biodiversity friendly mitigation option
• Outcome: Restoration of 30,000 ha peatlands
(10%) → emission savings of ~ 300,000 t CO2-eq.,
avoidance cost of 8 to 12 EUR / t CO2. In
combination with alternative land use options
(extensive grazing, reed production or alder forest)
costs decrease to 0 to 4 EUR / t CO2.
• Costs of restoring green infra < Costs of
manmade infra
- Federal Environmental Agency 2007; MLUV MV 2009; Schäfer 2009. See TEEB for local & regional policy makers 2010 -
©http://conservationvalue.blogspot
.com/2006_05_01_archive.htm
Restored peatland in Trebeltal 2007
Foto: D. Zak, http://www.fv-berlin.de
Cost savings: climate change mitigation

25. • Situation: Bet Bet, Australia, salinization threatens agriculture in the area,
damages infrastructure and has a negative impact on the river ecosystems.
• Assessment: Situation is caused by land use practices that lead to the
reduction in permanent vegetation with deep roots, leading to reduction in
aquifer recharge produced
• Outcome: The Bet Bet tradable salinity credits auction: farmers could offer
their commitment to undertake actions to reduce salinity in exchange for a
certain payment. The farmers who won the auction could fulfil the
obligations by reducing salinity in their fields or by buying salinity
credits from other farmers who had achieved higher reductions than those
established in their contracts
© www.surfline.com
Source: Connor et al. (2008)
Slide by Daniela Russi
Cost savings: water availability / aquifer recharge

26. Further information
Picture © IEEP Web
• The Economics of Ecosystems and
Biodiversity (TEEB) (2008 - )
• Kettunen et al. (2012) TEEB Nordic
• Guidance Manual for TEEB Country Studies
(2013)
• TEEB Water and Wetlands (2013)
• TEEB Green Economy (2012)
• TEEB Finland (2012 – 2014)
• Kettunen & ten Brink (2013) Social and
Economic Benefits of Protected Areas - An
Assessment Guide

27. www.ieep.eu
@IEEP_eu
Picture © Stefan Simis
Marianne Kettunen
Principal Policy Analyst IEEP
mkettunen@ieep.eu
Patrick ten Brink
Senior Fellow / Head of Environmental Economics IEEP
ptenbrink@ieep.eu
IEEP is an independent, not-for-profit institute dedicated to the analysis, understanding
and promotion of policies for a sustainable environment in Europe.
Thanks !
Picture © IEEP Web